Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by Mid7night

[FlorianR]

The newest .org release - the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by Mid7night for a price of $20.

Quoting the .org homepage:

"The A-4 Skyhawk is the very first commercial release by Ben Harber, aka Mid7night, our famous Community Leader and active contributor.

4 Variants of the A-4 Skyhawk

Virtaul cockpit

Many features"

I scanned throught the pictures and the exterior doesn't look half bad. The textures are a bit bland, but the 3d model and looks are fairly well done. However, the "3d" cockpit looks more like a brown pit with 2d buttons and displays. In my opinion, its not worth $20 but would have been an outstanding freeware model. Also, note how "virtual" was spelled in the description  .

I would like to know what all of you think of this plane, and if you have bought it, what your thoughts are.

Cheers,

FlorianR

link to plane: http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=284

[simbabeat]

I agree with you.  The 3D cockpit is really lacking.  The exterior looks good however, but not amazing.  I don't think it is worth $20. maybe a low cost payware of $10, if that.

[MaidenFan]

Don't waste your money, dude. You could get the C152 or the BK-117 for slightly more. Spend that $20 on something that will last.

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

Agreed, a good bird, but not a $20 bird.

[dpny]

it's more fun than setting fire to your neighbor's meth lab.

[MaidenFan]

it's more fun than setting fire to your neighbor's meth lab.

That was random ;D

[-TheoGregory]

it's more fun than setting fire to your neighbor's meth lab.

Ya true, this landing gear is higher than a meth addict...

[steven winslow]

Based on the pics I've seen, that gear may seem wrong, but it actually looks pretty close to these pics:

http://www.google.com/search?q=a-4+skyhawk&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=oa_lTfPJEOH40gGc9_3ABw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1726&bih=1028

[Ben Russell]

Skyhawks controlled-crashed onto carriers. Long travel or broken airplanes, pretty simple really.

[dpny]

IIRC, the A-4 was also designed specifically to deliver nuclear weapons: in fact, it's the smallest airplane which is nuclear-capable. Part of the reason for the landing gear is to get the standover height needed for the B-61 free fall bomb.

[Simmo W]

Good pics Steven. But the on-ground model's gear shafts still appear too thin to me, and don't look compressed, they look as if in-air, unsprung.

[Lukasz]

Get the plane into Plane Maker and put a real photo behind it. Only then it could be said if the landing gear is accurate or not, just rememeber about compression under weight. Camera angles and FOVs often create illusions, so unless you have two shots from the same perspective (f.e. top, front, side), not really much can be said about the shape and proportions. I agree on the lacking cockpit though.

[Leen de Jager]

This is a nice plane , nevertheless it should be freeware.

Not so long ago many planes like this one, were offered as payware and the over-all quality of aircraft available for X-Plane was likewise this one ( many worse).

When I came over from MSFS I was surprised seeing the " X-Plane payware" ,having a quality wich could not even reach the level of acceptable freeware for MSFS , being offered as serious payware.

The first planes I bought for X-Plane were big disappointments.

Coming from the MSFS world I was spoiled I must admit.

Things changed dramaticly and nowadays there are aircraft for X-Plane available having the quality of the best MSFS add-ons or even better.

The result of this all will be a decreasing amount of simple payware planes offered.

In no time we all will be spoiled and freeware-quality add-ons will be freeware only.

Just my two cents.

Leen de Jager

[Warmbrak]

I took the plunge and bought it as I love modern military aircraft for X-Plane with bells and whistles. Although a lot of effort went into this model and the 3D cockpit, the cockpit itself feels a bit sterile and it detracts somewhat from the experience. It flies well, and there are a few things I would like to read up on before I comment on the ACF itself. With low energy elevator authority suffers substantially, and with full fuel one will need to exert a reasonable amount of G's pulling up through the vertical to make a full loop. On my first try with full internal and external fuel I lost authority whilst pointing straight up, and performed an "accidental tailslide" in the process with the nose falling back forward during the stall  :

Maybe some more detailing of the 3D cockpit would make it much more attractive. I am enjoying it so far and do not regret my purchase, and with a bit more development in that area it could join my list of favourites. Once we get dynamic shadows in the cockpit (perhaps in X-Plane 10), this plane will shine even more.

[simbabeat]

There was a review of itposted on the .org today by Voidhawk9.  It might just be me but it seems like he may have been put up to it.  It talks good about the .org's product the whole time and of course it was immediately put on the frontpage of the .org.

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=52298

Cheers

[Goran_M]

Very unusual review. 

He seems to contradict himself in certain areas.

[Leen de Jager]

Should you buy it?

If extreme visual detail and complete systems modelling is what is most important to you, then this probably isn't the perfect buy for you.

If accurate and interesting flight models are important to you (and then you'll love this aircraft.

I've been repeatedly disappointed by some pay-ware flight models in recent times, such that I don't use them much. This one is a refreshing return to what X-plane is all about, and an aircraft I keep coming back to fly again!

Hmmm......strange way of presentation a review.

Looks like merely advertising to me.

The part I qouted above really makes me a bit angry.

If we want extreme visual detail and complete systems modelling we should not buy the model.

If accurate and interesting flight models is we want we should buy this model.

Hey guys we are living in 2011 and there are airplanes for X-Plane having them both.

Stating , "X-Plane is after all, a FLIGHT simulator!" , please give me a break.

X-Plane is a contemporary flightsimulator wich is capable of performing excellent with contemporary models having both features.

Planes like this Skyhawk are very nice to fly on an older rig for having nostalgic moments.

I really would fancy it as freeware , I am afriad the times models like this could proudly wear the label payware is gone, as I stated earlier at this topic.

A week ago I wrote on the Org forum:

Very nice. But ,why says the picture on the link to this download "Free" while this is actually payware.

I was supported by various other people, nevertheless the plane is still being advertised as "FREE"

Clicking the link we enter the shop and we see the price.

Now a week later nothing changed.

If the "FREE" sign is so hard to remove , they should consider removing the price-tag.

Leen de Jager

[Goran_M]

That's kinda what I wanted to say.

Just didn't know how to word it.

But hey, if a developer wants to simplify a product, it's less competition for the rest of us that want to make a more complete model.

[dpny]

But hey, if a developer wants to simplify a product, it's less competition for the rest of us that want to make a more complete model.

That only makes sense if you think it's a zero sum game: it's not. I own both the A-4 (which is enormously fun to fly) and the CRJ, which is fun in its own way.

[Mid7night]

Haven't been round here in a while, but noticed this thread about my A-4, so I feel compelled to jump in...

Re: Landing Gear

Yeah the look long; they ARE!  One of the design criteria was easy store-access; which is the main reason for the long gear.  One problem with comparing to static-display photos is that when the Skyhawk is parked, they very often will compress the struts, which makes it appear shorter.  I modeled mine from many many 3-view drawings (and reference photos too), so I am pretty confident in the physical proportions of the aircraft.

Also, comparing the height of an unloaded Aggressor to a fully loaded one with wing tanks isn't exactly apples-to-apples.

Re: Cockpit Quality & Price

Don't know exactly what to say...I'm an aircraft designer, not a game-graphics guru, so if it's not up-to-snuff in your opinion then just vote with your wallet (as many of you have).  The Store priced it at $20, which is pretty normal for a new product, and that price will likely come down in time, as all products do.

My modeling focus is usually on flightmodel and kinematic animations, and the Skyhawk is no exception.  Maybe that means I need to team up with a graphics-guy to do my cockpits in the future - Which I'm TOTALLY open to BTW!  I don't particularly like interiors and texturing, I like to barrel down the Grand Canyon in the chase-view.

Re: "FREE" tag on payware planes

I really don't know why this is a huge deal on MY plane; it's true of EVERYthing on the Org DM, it's a glitch in the process and they're working to fix it.  I've looked at many other Payware planes which also have "FREE" stamped on their thumbnail and no one bats an eye, but for some reason people were compelled to post comments and complain about mine. I don't know why I'm being singled out on this.  It is in the PAYWARE category, with all the other PAYWARE planes.

Re: The review by Voidhawk9

Yes, I asked him to write about it.  Not the Org, ME.  Void is a friend of mine and he beta-tested the early versions, so I asked him to write up his thoughts.  Not to advertise or fluff it (he certainly didn't hide the shortcomings, in my opinion) but just to inform people of what's there before they decide to buy or not.

Yes this is 2011, and yes there are X-Plane models out there that "have it all"; if this one doesn't have enough features for you, then don't buy it or wait 'til the price is more appropriate for you.

While Leen de Jager may be angered by the lack of visual-shine; I myself get a little heated when people minimize the flight simulation aspects of X-Plane over graphic niceties!  I use X-Plane at work to simulate and iterate thru aircraft configurations on a daily basis, so in my opinion the "real" power of X-Plane is its flightmodel capabilities.  That may not be YOUR opinion, and that's great - we use the same tool for different things.  But presuming that everyone wants what you do is a little naive.

I didn't make my Skyhawk for everyone, and I know it's not for everyone.  I made it for me, to have fun and fly around, and I put a LOT of work into it so I figured 'why not sell it?'.  Maybe $20 wasn't the "right" price, but that wasn't my call.

While you're busy complaining about the gear-length and lacking-graphics, I'm a little sad no one noticed the fact that I actually modeled the nosegear-compression-mechanism and steering actuator.  Guess it's true; people never remember what you did right, but they never forget what you did wrong.  :-\

[Kesomir]

Good on you Mid7night. I'm not a customer because I don't fly this sort of aircraft, but you're right that the flight model is a very important aspect of an aircraft add-on.

Would love to see you team up with a modeller/texturer to produce 'full-fat' (and thus higher priced) add-ons. Like Peter did with Ramezess on the A380 pit. Incredible duos appear to be all the rage at the moment.

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

One thing, so Nicholas and whoever else decided to price it at $20 dollars?  Shouldn't you, as the builder, decide the price, or did you say to the .org, "I want $x.xx per aircraft sold," and they priced it where they wanted to meet your request and make a profit?

[Gjalp]

Hi Mid7night,

great to see you on here defending your product. I havent bought it but am tempted as a few of my friends used to fly A4's in the RNZAF.

One question.....what 3d pakage did you use to make the obj model? The reason I ask is that you would have had to have set the uv's for texturing. Using these uv's you can then set up the 3d program to make an Ambient Occlusion (big words that mean a shadow baked texture map), map. Its a seperate map that has to be combined in a graphics edting package (I use photoshop...), with the colour texture map you made. I use Maya so I have no idea how easy it is to use blender or AC3d, if these are the packages you use.

Look forward to hearing from you.....and once I have paid off my credit card who knows, there might be an A4 in the hangar

Slainte.

Andy

[Mid7night]

One thing, so Nicholas and whoever else decided to price it at $20 dollars?  Shouldn't you, as the builder, decide the price, or did you say to the .org, "I want $x.xx per aircraft sold," and they priced it where they wanted to meet your request and make a profit?

Either method would work, it just depends on your business model.  In this case, Nicolas decided the price.

I didn't have a price or $/aircraft in mind, being that this is my first outing into Payware.

If I were to make a product, and take it to a retail store to sell, I would likely tell the store "here's the wholesale price I will sell to you at" and the store would add their markup to it and arrive at a retail price that way.  With digital stuff like this, it's less clear-cut; there's no actual material cost to base the product wholesale price on, it's just my time.  So it's really up to the retailer to price their products competitively.  I honestly don't know what I would've priced it at if I had my own store, it's hard to make that call now that it's out there at $20.

And just additional info; it's not just my time and effort - ddenn worked and made two of the included liveries - I'm not saying it was a ton of work, I'm just saying there's him to consider as well.

Hi Mid7night,

great to see you on here defending your product. I havent bought it but am tempted as a few of my friends used to fly A4's in the RNZAF.

One question.....what 3d pakage did you use to make the obj model? The reason I ask is that you would have had to have set the uv's for texturing. Using these uv's you can then set up the 3d program to make an Ambient Occlusion (big words that mean a shadow baked texture map), map. Its a seperate map that has to be combined in a graphics edting package (I use photoshop...), with the colour texture map you made. I use Maya so I have no idea how easy it is to use blender or AC3d, if these are the packages you use.

Look forward to hearing from you.....and once I have paid off my credit card who knows, there might be an A4 in the hangar

Slainte.

Andy

I use AC3D pretty much 100%.  Sometimes I use Blender for conversion, but that's it.  AC3D has a texture-map-editor, tho not as powerful as Blender's (another reason I use Blender occasionally).  I know of Ambient Occlusion, and I also use Photoshop for all my texturing.  The problem is the time and effort - and artistic talent - needed to produce good maps...I don't always have enough of all those!

Also, I have a fundamental bone to pick with graphics-engines; I personally don't like that Ambient Occlusion is even necessary.  I fully understand its purpose, but in my head; there's no such thing as Ambient Occlusions in "real life", there's only light and shadows.  So the engineer in me looks at the graphics-rendering people and says "get your act together! I've got the geometry, now LIGHT IT!" 

I realize there are software and hardware limitations, and thus the reason for Ambient Occlusion, and normal and bump and spec maps for that matter.  Anyway, I digress....

Glad you're looking forward to the Scooter!

[Leen de Jager]

Mid7night wrote:

While Leen de Jager may be angered by the lack of visual-shine; I myself get a little heated when people minimize the flight simulation aspects of X-Plane over graphic niceties!  I use X-Plane at work to simulate and iterate thru aircraft configurations on a daily basis, so in my opinion the "real" power of X-Plane is its flightmodel capabilities.  That may not be YOUR opinion, and that's great - we use the same tool for different things.  But presuming that everyone wants what you do is a little naive.

Mid7night is right when he says "presuming that everyone wants what you do is a little naive"

Thats not what I am doing.

I am just saying these days models can have good and realistic looks AS WELL.

I am certainly not minimizing the flight simulation aspects, absolutely not.

In fact they are the most important.

On the other hand these days we have the means to have excellent flight models AND the same time excellent looks.

Being able to walk and to speak/sing is normal,  someone missing one of the capeabilities is disabled.

A contemporary flightsim-airplane should have a good flightmodel and have good looks the same time.

Nowadays a model missing one of the two is more or less disabled.

It might be a good singer or a happy pedestrian , not a singing happy pedestrian.

As I said before I am spoiled , within a year 80% of the X-Plane community will be,within a few years more practicly everyone.

I am commercially involved in flightsim , I recognise the pattern.

Leen de Jager